Clare Coatman (London, oD): I went along to Clare Short's Political Studies Association/Hansard Society lecture (full text here) on 'making politics fit for purpose'. I have never warmed to Clare Short, but found myself laughing along with the rest of the audience several times and the lecture was well thought out if perhaps a little 'school-marmish' in places.
Her main aim was to spell out in a definitive way two things: first, that there really is Presidential governance, and second that this creates ineffective decision making. I found particularly disturbing her claim that, "there was never a full discussion of any policy issue with all options considered and a consensus reached in my six years as a member of the Cabinet".
She went on to say that the extensive powers of patronage enjoyed by the Prime Minister and the timetabling and guillotining of all legislation, is very bad for accountability. She sees "the growing distortion in the electoral system" as a main cause. It's not new (as she admitted) but backed by her personal experience it seemed pretty definitive.
However, while I firmly believe in the virtues of Cabinet government, I disagree with her characterisation of it as having shuffled off the mortal coil: I prefer to think of it as merely lying dormant - as it did during Thatcher's time - before resurfacing under Major.
I also wonder whether her assertion that if government was more accountable, and our electoral system more proportional, people would participate more, is true any longer. I think the shift away from parliamentary and party politics is a long term trend predicated on a disillusionment stemming from scandal and a sense that it matters less and less which party is elected – no matter what the electoral system. As Clare Short says, "what is said in the House, as opposed to through the media, has less and less significance."
It isn't that I'm not desperate for electoral reform, but Clare overestimates the effect it would have. She talks of the cabinet "once again [becoming] a place where decisions would be fully considered" and a lessening in the power of spin doctors, as if this would follow almost automatically; whereas I think of the '07 Scottish elections debacle. Reform needs to happen, but it is going to be a long revolution.
padav said:
Mon, 2008-11-10 15:37Clare,
First of all my obligatory whinge about the fact that resources of this type are almost always located in London - why? The recent series of "Who Owns the Progressive Future" lectures hosted by the Guardian present yet another glaring example of Londoncentric political culture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/1
Moving swiftly on - I'm assuming you've considered the role of ideological differentiation (or lack thereof) as a prime factor in the equation driving significant percentages of the eligible UK population to conclude "that it matters less and less which party is elected" and behave accordingly?
Single member plurality has the double whammy effect of:
a) Inducing the big two mainstream parties to present a facade of ideological unity in order to secure the holy grail of absolute power (overall Commons majority) on offer exclusively via FPTP
b) Frustrating significant new entrants on to the political landscape because of the constituency system
These pressures effectively stifle political diversity and ensure that those who do win power essentially do so via centrist lowest denominator appeal.
For me a major reason why UK political discourse fails to ignite any meaningful sense of public enthusiasm stems from its utter predictability.
We know already that the government will be formed from one of the big two mainstream parties.
We know already that potential new entrants (on a universal scale) are only there to make up the numbers and/or provide a hint of entertainment during the declaration - Greens, UKIP, BNP, Respect, English Democrats, Monster Raving Loonies, et al all fall into this category.
Proportionality would have two major beneficial effects in the short to medium term.
First it would make overall election outcomes intrinsically fairer and deliver the first truly "representative" Parliament in living memory
Secondly, smaller parties could realistically secure their first tentative footholds in the bastion of Parliamentary Sovereignty, leading potentially to the establishment of viable ideological alternatives to the mainstream incumbents and the emergence of a diverse political landscape.
Electoral reformers are constantly at pains to point out that such change cannot, in isolation, deliver the more progressive and engaging democratic/political landscape we so desperately need but what it can do is provide the key to a doorway leading to this laudable goal.
Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England